Lash wrote:By censuring use of this word, it seems we are saying Islamic people are incapable of fascist governments.
No one, I take it, is suggesting that we censure use of the word. The point is that the word, like any word (but especially words having to do with political appellation) should be used with some regard to its definition. Definitions evolve, of course, but there is a difference between an evolving definition and a misused one.
Some historians contend that the word "fascism" has already been distorted beyond recognition, as it is now often used to describe any authoritarian state. In the case of the Italian
fascismo movement, the term did not simply involve notions of authoritarian rule but also economic policy based on a rejection of Marxist socialism. By shedding the term of its specificity and applying it to any totalitarian regime, it is now not uncommon to see the Soviet Union described as fascist, despite the stark differences between Mussolini's and Lenin's economic ideologies. (Which is not to deny similarities between the two states as well, but as Set mentioned, the indiscriminate use of the term only serves to obscure these nuances and simply regard both states as "not like us.")
What is being described in this thread is a further distortion of the term whereby not even authoritarian rule is a necessary definition; these days the word "fascism" is being used simply as a synonym for terrorism.
Setanta wrote:We are right back to the old cold war situation of declaring: "He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our son-of-a-bitch.
I was refraining from mentioning the Cold War because the current situation is very, very much a hot one, but the Cold War tactics are indeed quite transparent: paint your enemies with the most vicious brush you can find for the purpose of riling everyone against them. If you know the other side is fascist, you know all you need to know; just hand me my gun.
